Delete Comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the explicit warning 'This action cannot be undone,' which reinforces the destructive nature and provides additional context beyond the structured annotations. It does not explain idempotency behavior, but the existing annotation covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear first line, an Args section, a Returns section, and a warning note. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately sized—neither overlong nor cryptic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, return value shape, and irreversibility warning. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so the Returns example compensates well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both file_id and comment_id. The description's Args section repeats the schema info without adding new meaning. Per the rubric, baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra value is added here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a comment from a Google Doc' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling comment tools like create, reply, resolve, and list. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb 'delete' and the resource, but no explicit guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions or exclusions, though the 'cannot be undone' note offers a hint about appropriate caution.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.